Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2000)260 - Amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations (Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2000)260 - Amendment of Council Directive 76/769/EEC relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances ... |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2000)260  |
| date | 20-06-2000 |
In the EU, Short Chain Chlorinated Paraffins (SCCP) are mainly used as an additive in metal working fluids. Other uses are as a flame retardant in rubber formulations and as an additive in paints and other coating systems.
Under Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances, the Commission's Draft Recommendation on the results of the risk evaluation and risk reduction strategies for four substances, including SCCP, was finalised in July 1998 and unanimously given a favourable opinion by the Article 15 Committee established under Regulation 793/93 on 28 July 1999. Following the approval by the College on 12 October 1999 the Recommendation was published in the Official Journal on 13 November 1999.
This risk assessment concluded that there is a need for specific protective measures for the aquatic ecosystem.
The Commission Recommendation called for the consideration of measures at Community level, restricting the marketing and use of SCCP in particular in metalworking and leather finishing, adding that further work is necessary to establish those uses for which derogations can be justified. An independent study launched by DG III could not demonstrate evidence of a need for derogations for EU industry.
Consulted on the results of the Risk Assessment of SCCP the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (CSTEE) concluded on 27 November 1998 that there are potential unacceptable environmental risks associated with the life cycle of these chlorinated paraffins, though the use of SCCP poses no significant risk to workers, consumers and man exposed via the environment.
On the basis of the Recommendation, and in order to avoid distortions of the internal market caused by the disparity of national legislation on chlorinated paraffins, the Commission proposes to introduce harmonisation measures in the framework of Directive 76/769 on restrictions of the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations. The 20th amendment of that Directive will ban SCCP in the two areas of application cited by the Recommendation, namely in metalworking and leather finishing. With regard to the other applications of SCCP, namely as plasticiser in paints, coatings and sealants, and as flame retardant in rubber, plastics and textiles, risk reduction measures should be reconsidered within three years of adoption of this Directive, in the light of the review of scientific knowledge and technical progress.
It should be noted that eleven of the EU Member States, which have fully endorsed the Commission Recommendation for SCCP, had committed themselves to PARCOM Decision 95/1 in 1995 under the Paris Convention (from 1998 OSPAR Convention). This PARCOM Decision lays down the phasing out of the uses of SCCP within the following time frame: use as plasticiser in paints and coatings, use in metal working fluids, use as flame retardants in rubber, plastics and textiles by 31 December 1999; use as plasticiser in sealants by 31 December 2004. Thus, the PARCOM Decision goes further than the Commission Recommendation by including the uses of SCCP as plasticisers and flame retardants. On the other hand the Commission Recommendation goes further than the PARCOM Decision by including the uses of SCCP in leather finishing. The European Community is not party to the PARCOM Decision. The United Kingdom did not accept the PARCOM Decision. Austria, Greece and Italy are not party to the OSPAR Convention.
2. JUSTIFICATION FOR PROPOSAL AND CONSIDERATIONS OF SUBSIDIARITY
What are the objectives of the proposal in relation to the Community's obligations-
The first objective of the proposal is to protect the environment by taking account of the findings of the risk assessment.
The second objective is to preserve the Internal Market.
Does the initiatives arise out of an exclusive Community competence or a shared competence-
The action to preserve the Internal Market for dangerous substances falls within the exclusive competence of the Community. This competence was established by Council Directive 76/769/EEC.
What are the courses of action available to the Community-
The only course of action available is a proposal to amend for the twentieth time Directive 76/769/EEC.
Are uniform rules necessary- Is it not sufficient to establish targets to be implemented by Member States-
The proposed 20th amendment establishes uniform rules for the circulation of SCCP to complete the Internal Market. It also guarantees a high level of protection of the environment. The proposed 20th amendment is the only way to meet these goals. Targets would be insufficient.
3. RATIONALE OF THE PROPOSAL
The need for this proposal arose when PARCOM (Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from land-based Sources) adopted in June 1995 Decision 95/1, phasing out the use of short chained chlorinated paraffins in four categories of applications. It has had to await completion of the Community risk assessment on SCCP's.
The PARCOM decision should be implemented by its signatories between 31 December 1999 and 31 December 2004 depending on the specific uses. Taking into account that ten of those signatories are also EU Member States, such an implementation would jeopardise the Internal Market. Thus, the rationale of the Commission's proposal is to introduce EU harmonised measures on SCCP's based on a Community risk assessment and an analysis of costs and benefits.
4. COSTS AND BENEFITS
4.1. Costs
The proposed Directive should pose only minor problems to the industry or trade, as SCCP use is declining in the two applications for which restrictions are envisaged and for which companies have already developed substitutes.
4.2. Benefits
The benefits of the proposal are to establish an Internal Market in SCCP's and to protect the environment.
5. PROPORTIONALITY
The 20th amendment will yield benefits in terms of a Single Market and of protecting the environment. These will be achieved at little cost.
PERFORMED IN PREPARING THE DRAFT 20TH AMENDMENT
Advice on the preparation of the proposal was sought through several meetings involving experts from Member States and industry, represented by CEFIC (European Chemical Industry Council) and COTANCE.
7. CONFORMITY WITH THE TREATY
This proposal is intended to facilitate a high level of protection of the environment and is therefore in conformity with Article 95 3 of the Treaty.
The proposal does not call for any special provisions of the kind referred to in Article 15 of the Treaty.
It is in conformity with Article 5.
8. CONSULTATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE
In compliance with Article 95 of the Treaty, the Codecision Procedure with the European Parliament is applicable. The Economic and Social Committee has to be consulted.